9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 1691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of petitions were working in the Regional Transport Offices at various places in the State and in various capacities such as First Division Assistant, Office Superintendent etc. It appears that Sri B.N. Jagadeesh (one of the respondents) presented a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 06.08.2012 against unknown persons, alleging that many Officers in the Department of Customs, Regional Transport Offices in Karnataka had nexus with dealers of vehicles, middlemen and owners of imported vehicles and were involved in multi-crore racket causing loss to the exchequer. It was alleged in the complaint that vehicles are brought to India by illegal means by fabricating and manipulating the Bill of Entry, Bill of Lading etc. and are presented before the Custom officials and in collusion with the Custom officials, such imported vehicles were brought into India on short payment of custom duty and thereafter with the connivance of the officials in the RTOs again short payment of duty/taxes were made, thereby causing huge revenue loss to the exchequer. Therefore, criminal prosecution was sought to be initiated under the provisions of the Prevention of Corrupti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... axation Act, 1957 (for short 'Taxation Act'). The State Government specifically noticed that Section 21 of the said Act would also provide that no suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act. The State Government further held that if it was found that any of the serving Officers were found guilty of misconduct, departmental enquiry could be initiated under the provisions of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. 6. The learned Counsels for the petitioners would therefore submit that prosecution against five of the Officers was dropped since sanction to prosecute was not granted by the State Government. When prosecution against five Officers was dropped, for the reasons assigned by the State Government, prosecution against the petitioners should also have been dropped for the very same reason. The learned Counsels submit that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners who stand on the same footing as the five Officers against whom prosecution was dropped, is a clear violation and discrimination. In the same breath it was contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners. In this regard, the learned Counsel places reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.K.Chowdekar Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.101291/2013 which was disposed of on 21.08.2013 at Kalaburagi Bench. The learned Counsel submits that Rule 214(3) fell for consideration before the Division Bench. It is submitted that in the said case, action was sought to be initiated against the Government servant in the year 2011 with respect to alleged misappropriation of funds between 1995 to 2000. It was submitted that the Division Bench held that the words 'judicial proceedings' appearing in Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 214 was applicable to civil proceedings only and not criminal proceedings. 9. At this juncture, the learned Counsels for the petitioners would point out to two decisions of another coordinate Division Bench in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. V.H.Agarkhed And Another in RFA No.200041/2016 decided on 30.05.2017 and in the case of G.R.Muttagi and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others in RFA No.200024/2017 which was decided on 09.08.2017. The learned Counsels would submit that the Division Benches have noticed Sub- Rule (6) of Rule 214 which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the category specified in Subsection (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. Subsection (2) of Section 468 provides that if the offence is punishable with fine only, the limitation shall be six months; if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, then the period of limitation is one year; whereas if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, the period of limitation is three years. The learned Counsel submits that the punishment for offences under Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 to 12 of P.C. Act are in excess of three years and therefore, no period of limitation is prescribed and applicable for taking action with respect to the provisions under the P.C. Act. 13. Heard the learned Counsels for the petitioners, respondent and perused the petition papers. 14. The issue seems to be covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Kailash Nath reported in (1989) 1 SCC 321. The respondent therein was posted in the Industrial supply section of the Directorate of Industries, where various types of raw materials including wax and important licences were dealt w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovident fund, gratuity, confirmation, promotion, seniority, tenure or termination of service, compulsory or permanent retirement, superannuation, pension, changing the age of superannuation, deputation and disciplinary proceedings. Whether or not a Government servant should be prosecuted for an offence committed by him obviously cannot be treated to be something pertaining to conditions of service. 17. It was further held that making a provision that a Government servant, even if he is guilty of grave misconduct or negligence which constitutes an offence punishable either under the Penal Code or P.C. Act or an analogous law should be granted immunity from such prosecution after the lapse of a particular period so as to provide incentive for efficient work would not only be against public policy but would also be counter-productive. It was held that it is likely to be an incentive not for efficient work but for committing offences including embezzlement and misappropriation by some of them at the fag end of their tenure of their service and making an effort that the offence is not detected within the period prescribed for launching prosecution or manipulating delay in the matter of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laying down conditions of service under Article 309, such a provision cannot in the purported exercise of power under Article 309 be made by either incorporating it in the substantive clause of a Rule or in the proviso thereto. 20. Keeping in mind the above discussion, the Apex Court held that the third proviso to Rule 2.2 cannot be interpreted as laying down an absolute or general embargo on prosecution of a Government servant if the conditions stated therein are satisfied. It was held that even if on first impression the said Rule may appear to be placing such an embargo it has to be interpreted by taking recourse to the well-settled rule of reading down a provision so as to bring it within the framework of its source of power without, of course, frustrating the purpose for which such provision was made. It was therefore held that Rule 2.2 which can be called a substantive clause reserves to the Government the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to Government, if, in a departmental or judicial proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
